/lit/ - Literature

>>19216751
Abrahamic religion solved this.

To everyone here: dont bother effortposting, jannies will prune this thread (and every other philosophy thread) as soon as you'll start doing it. I figured out that they're just trolling, they specifically wait for discussions to pick up before closing these threads

>>19216803
this is based on the literature, Euthyphro by Plato, though.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

>>19216819
Doesnt matter, they judt moved to /his/ a thread about Sophist and Parmenides. Jannies do not give a shit, they just hate philosophy

>>19216751
>>19216751
What the gods want is good not because they want it but because if you don't do it they'll fuck with you. Piety is whatever action will not get you fucked over by some olympian chad.

>>19216803
Ngl I was going to type out a few paragraphs but then I saw this and thought better of it, thanks bro

>>19216842
I've been burned 3 fucking times today, I'm livid

>>19216842
when are we getting a /phy/ board?

>>19216855
You're free to ask them, they'll just ignore you, move your post to /qa/ and proceed to never ever explain what their stance is

>>19216751
obviously God loves it because it's good. There was never really a real "dilemma" the answer is supposed to be obvious Socrates was just showing that Euthyphro was being a fucking retard when he said things are pious because they are loved by the gods.

>>19216878
also this doesn't somehow invalidate the goodness of God because the good is still contingent on God as he had to create the good as he creates all things, but he created it because he saw it would be good. pic is retarded

>>19216885
Holy retard, way to miss the whole dilemma

>>19216865
truly a kafkaesquian nightmare

Doesn’t this basically end on a cliffhanger? I read it a little while back but I feel like I remember it getting really good, with Socrates laying this argument out and then the other guy gets all booty blasted and leaves

>>19217789
that's socrates for you.
also bump

>>19216751
Classical theists usually get around this by claiming God equals Good ontologically. Unfortunately this commits them to an archaic and pants on head retarded ontology.

William Lane Craig said that it’s a false dichotomy and that the Christian God wills it because He *is* good. So goodness must flow from Him necessarily. Take that as you will, it satisfied me.

>>19216751
Love is just chemicals in your brain until it isn't, and it becomes significant when it becomes more than that

>>19216751
>valid moral philosophy cannot be contingent on arbitrary standards
Why? The demand for "rock solid" moral principles is childish considering the limitations of the human mind. We will never be more than a grasping atom of the Universe, forever doomed to live off assumptions and guesses, what's so different about choosing your morals principles in a similar way?

>>19219136
Because then how do you argue that one person's arbitrary standards are moral while another person's arbitrary standards aren't.

>>19216751
Why would god's will be considered arbitrary? It made sense in the original dialogue because there are a multitude of gods and they have differing opinions, but in a monotheistic relgion you can just claim that none of is arbitrary since he's the only one that has any say on these "rules". If he thinks black is white, it will literally be white and no amount of calling his decision arbitrary could ever change the fact that it is a literal fact. An omnipotent god doesn't decide things arbitrarily; his will is the only thing that will be consistent because it is fact.

>>19219209
ar·bi·trar·y
/ˈärbəˌtrerē/
adjective
adjective: arbitrary

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"

Arbitrary meaning without justification. If God says something is wrong without giving a reason why it is wrong that is arbitrary.

>>19219209
What a perfect example of how Christianity killed any critical thinking and was used to make poor people subservient.

>>19219238
He doesn't need to tell you the reason though. Can't it be that there's a reason behind his actions that isn't arbitrary? If you think of this as arbitrary could you not call the entire reason for creation itself to be arbitrary? Why did god create anything in the first place? Because he wanted to. Why did his decide one thing to be white and the other black? Because he wanted to and because he is the one that decided these things in the first place. Every single action taken by anyone in existence is because he wills it. By calling any of his actions arbitrary you are calling everything that has ever existed arbitrary.

>>19219259
>Can't it be that there's a reason behind his actions that isn't arbitrary?
In that case refer to the second leg of the dilemma. Either God has a reason or doesn't have a reason for saying something is wrong. Either way objective morality can't come from him since either the reason comes from outside him or arbitrary decisions aren't objective.

>>19219250
That's what all religion is being used for to some degree.

>>19216751
Why is it arbitrary for the just to be based on God's will and commands? This seems to be taking for granted the idea that strictures applying to regular humans extend to God, when properly that would be something requiring its own proof rather than being taken a priori like this argument does. It is considered arbitrary for humans to base their sense of morality off their will because they are imperfect, created beings with desires that are impermanent and fleeting, but does the same apply to God? There are other areas of morality where things forbidden to humans are acceptable to God. Humans should not desire praise because they are sinful, fallen beings, but no major religion sees anything wrong with a perfect being such as God requiring praise. So, if the only argument against the "right because God commands it" side of the dilemma is that this would be arbitrary under the application of human standards to God, this doesn't seem like much of an argument, because it is not self-evident that these standards apply.

>>19219280
Arbitrary just means without having a reason see the definition >>19219238. Either God has a reason for saying something is wrong or he doesn't. If he doesn't that's an arbitrary whim. If God can say his arbitrary whims are moral why can't I?

>>19219286
The reason is God's will. Is the will of a perfect being not a sufficient justification? And again, the difference is that God is perfect, all good, and all knowing, while you are not. Something acceptable for God to do might be unacceptable for you to do (in this case, by being arbitrary), because you don't have the same qualifications as God. There are plenty of fields of human action where something unacceptable for the inexperienced is a matter of course for the expert, imagine the even greater level of differentiation between mere mortals and the Almighty.

>>19219280
>Why is it arbitrary for the just to be based on God's will and commands?

Which one? Allah?

>>19219300
So you think being perfect gives justification for God's whims being moral. This is the second leg of the dilemma, having a reason outside of God for morality. Who says God is perfect? I sure as hell don't

>>19219305
That's a different argument entirely and you know it, so don't deflect. The point is whether divine command theory contains an inherent contradiction, and it doesn't, because the idea that it does is based on falsely taking for granted that a perfect being is held to the same standards as mortals. Which divine command is the correct one is a separate issue.

>>19219312
That's a different person as well. You just skipped over my response >>19219308
because your position is so weak

>>19216865
>move your post to /qa/
The worst part about this is that it's become a designated shitposting board like /s4s/, except where every single post is a hysterical wojak edit. Mods need to stop deleting meta threads (so long as they're occasional and don't clog up the catalog) if this is the state they let the alternative fall into. There's currently nowhere on this site to discuss board issues that isn't either against the rules or on a board that doesn't even exist for feedback anymore.

>>19219308
>>19219315
The perfection that provides justification is a total perfection that defines every aspect of God, whereas the other leg of the dilemma is considering specifically the idea of moral axioms existing outside of God. While you could debate the preeminence of God versus the concept of his perfection, the point remains that resort to God's will can still be justified without resorting to moral axioms outside God.

>>19219328
Refining this point slightly, the perfection of God is something that exists entirely within and is synonymous with God, so while you can make some "which came first" argument about that (which still would be misguided because, as said, God and his perfection are equivalent), the point remains that no moral justification outside God's essence need be sought.

>>19219328
No it can't. You explicitly use the moral axiom that perfection gives qualification to decide morality. This is the reason that allows God's whims to be moral in your argument. This falls squarely into the second leg of the dilemma and in addition is susceptible to the same criticism any moral axiom has. Why should I accept that arbitrary moral axiom?

ALL GOOD ORIGINATES IN & FROM GOD; GOD COMMANDS WHAT IS GOOD; WHAT IS GOOD IS NOT CONTINGENT TO GOD’S COMMAND, BUT TO HIS BEING; THIS IS REALISM; VOLUNTARISM IS HERETICAL.

>>19219349
>not murdering people IS good
But why?
>God IS good
But why? If you can just arbitrarily decide things as good just say normal morality is good and skip God as superfluous.

>>19219339
My original argument was weaker and I believe doesn't fall into this trap. The point is that the left leg takes for granted that morality coming from God's will is arbitrary and therefore unjustified in itself. My original point is that we can't know this for sure because it assumes without evidence that human standards apply to God. While my later example posited a justification that you claim falls into the second leg of the dilemma, it's not necessary for my original point to still hold. So, while you claim my argument for justification falls into the second leg of the dilemma, the point still stands that we can't know without further proof that the first leg truly invalidates morality based on God's will as arbitrary. You might have shown that we can't prove that it's just on its own merits, but it also still holds that we can't prove on the evidence given that it's unjust. And since the point of a paradox like this is to show a contradiction, if it is impossible to truly prove a contradiction with the premises given, the paradox does not hold as a reducto ad absurdum, and therefore does not refute divine command morality. You may be right that I failed to successfully argue in its favor, but this paradox has also failed to argue against it.

>>19216751
People's conscience 'daemon' may as well be a stand-in for God's dictate, notoriously fallible. God creating what is right and the ability to apprehend it makes it moot. Who cares, go slam Alcibiades' bussy faggot

>>19219368
If I need to provide a proof that God's arbitrary whims can't decide morality then you need to provide a proof that my arbitrary whims can't decide morality. That is a moral axiom I thought we could both agree on that morality can't be arbitrarily decided but if you want to throw it out go for it. Usually though apologists want to argue that ONLY God can decide morality not that everyone can lol.

>>19219209
Moslems and Christians are in disagreement what their One True Gods command. Both say their laws are arbitrary, because both their Gods are Good.
And they contradict each other as much as polytheistic gods are in conflict.

Now what?

>>19219381
To provide some background to this it is a consequence of trying to treat morality as a deductive system. All deductive systems start from arbitrary axioms that are agreed on. Math is full of sometimes mutually contradictory fundamental axioms that lead to different theorems. The difference is no one really cares whether the mathematical axioms are TRUE or not only whether you follow the consequences of those axioms logically. The problem morality faces is finding axioms everyone agrees to and it is much harder(impossible) than in math because people definitely do care what moral axioms you start with.

>>19219381
>you need to provide a proof that my arbitrary whims can't decide morality
This was addressed in the fact that your whims are impermanent, changing, and coming from an imperfect being, as well as there being mounds of empirical evidence that moral systems practiced by humans on such premises end badly. These are solid arguments against your whims being sufficient grounds for a moral system. But these arguments don't apply to God, or at least we don't know if they do, so they do not suffice as an argument against divine command as somehow flawed by being "arbitrary." We can know these things preclude as arbitrary morality from human will, we must remain at least agnostic on if the same applies to morality from God's will. While you pointed out that positively asserting that morality from God's will is not arbitrary based on so-and-so quality falls into the other side of the dilemma, simply stating that not enough evidence is given for the will-based side of the dilemma to be damning does not.

>>19219398
>This was addressed in the fact that your whims are impermanent, changing, and coming from an imperfect being, as well as there being mounds of empirical evidence that moral systems practiced by humans on such premises end badly.
Following God's rules has an extremely bad record in the real world. Looking at the history of Christianity historically is enough for to emphatically say that God is not remotely equipped to give out morality.

>>19219403
Now you're falling into the trap I mentioned in >>19219312 , debating about specific (supposed) divine commands rather than the concept in general. Specific examples of supposed divine commands failing does not prove that there is an inherent contradiction in the concept of divine command morality itself, which is what the Euthyphro dilemma is attempting to prove. You can even assume God isn't real, the question is about whether divine command morality would hold if a God did exist.

>>19219398
Forgot
>This was addressed in the fact that your whims are impermanent, changing, and coming from an imperfect being
Another moral axiom that morality can't come from an impermanent, changing and imperfect being. See this >>19219395 for what you're struggling with.

>>19219412
>debating about specific (supposed) divine commands rather than the concept in general. Specific examples of supposed divine commands failing does not prove that there is an inherent contradiction in the concept of divine command morality itself
I was just parroting your argument back at you. If specific examples of divine commands failing doesn't invalidate it why does specific examples of human whims failing invalidate those?

>>19219415
Not the same guy but probs cus the commands themselves may of been perfect but have been imperfectly followed by humans

>>19217789
classic plato

>>19216751
Jesus Christ. Christianity is the answer to something like 80% of the questions posed in the platonic literature.

>>19219111
That is also Plato's own answer. It's implied in the later dialogues.

>>19219575
Why do you say this? The dialogues do no suggest anything of the sort.

>>19219567
This. It also makes more sense because Plato was a christian.

Quod rex Christus est.

>>19216751
that's a clearly retarded and satanic false dichotomy purely propagated in the west to erode Christianity, the sole bedrock of moral modern society. God did not command the morals "Arbitrarily", had you read the bible you would see clearly why he commanded them and the fact that you had to read the bible to come to that conclusion and that it did not come from secularism or atheism, which are degenerate ideologies, speaks for itself.

>>19220074
so... God commands it because it is right.

In this context people still believed in Greek gods and the problem was that many of them would disagree with each other, so Plato/Socrates made a thought experiment on this nuance.

>>19216751
The Euthyphro Dilemma doesn't really matter for our modern conversations about religion. Perhaps it was relevant for ancient Greece, but in a world where we accept that religion and morality are distinct fields, and that the goal of religion is not necessarily morality, it's kinda pointless.

>>19220768
In OP's pic it even says Socrates modified question. Talking about multiple gods is a diversion just like talking about piety instead of morality would be even though Socrates used piety. The fatal question to Christian pretensions at objective morality is does God command something because it is morally right or is something morally right because God commands it?

>>19220794
Just look at all the responses above where people think morality comes from God. Euthyphro is still extremely relevant

>>19216751
God IS good.

>>19221163
if goodness is defined in terms of god's nature then it doesn't mean anything to say "god is good." it would just be like saying "dogs are doglike"

>>19216751
so in what way was Socrates and Plato leaning towards this Euthyphro dilemma? I'm guessing they believed we could be moral without some third party (IE God).

>>19221243
Yes. Dogs are doglike. What is dogness?